This study was a process evaluation of Pennsylvania's two
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs in their first
year of implementation. These programs were maintained through the
joint management of the state Department of Corrections (DOC), Board
of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency, and two private sector providers that operated the
programs. Opened in early 1998 in two correctional facilities for men,
each of these programs could... (more info)

This study was a process evaluation of Pennsylvania's two
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs in their first
year of implementation. These programs were maintained through the
joint management of the state Department of Corrections (DOC), Board
of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency, and two private sector providers that operated the
programs. Opened in early 1998 in two correctional facilities for men,
each of these programs could serve up to 60 male technical parole
violators (TPVs) with a history of substance abuse. Instead of the
nine- to 36-month terms typical for parolees recommitted for
violations, RSAT participants served six months in prison-based
intensive therapeutic communities (TCs), followed by six months of
aftercare in a DOC-sponsored Community Corrections Center (CCC),
similar to a halfway house. Both programs took a cognitive-behavioral
approach to drug treatment. This study focused on the prison-based
component of the RSAT programs. It examined the extent to which
components of RSAT treatment were in place and the integrity of
program operations. Interviews for this study were conducted between
February and December 1998. At intake, program staff interviewed RSAT
participants (Part 1, Intake Data), and Vera Institute of Justice
onsite researchers conducted participant interviews upon exit (Part 2,
Exit Data). Through December 31, 1998, 160 intake interviews and 77
exit interviews with program graduates were administered.

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Universe:
Male technical parole violators in the ten counties served
by RSAT programs in the eastern and western parts of Pennsylvania.

Data Types:
clinical data and survey data

Data Collection Notes:

(1) Data cover the first year of RSAT operations in
Pennsylvania and many of the implementation issues that arose had been resolved
by Spring 1999. Users are encouraged to obtain a copy of the project's final
report for more information. (2) The user guide and codebook are provided by
ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader
software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy
of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
This study was a process evaluation of
Pennsylvania's two RSAT programs in their first year of
implementation. These programs were maintained through the joint
management of the state Department of Corrections (DOC), Board of
Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency, and two private sector providers that operate the
programs. Pennsylvania's RSAT programs were unique in targeting
technical parole violators (TPVs). Opened in early 1998 in two
correctional facilities for men, each of these programs could serve up
to 60 male TPVs with a history of substance abuse. These programs were
also unique in their focus on cost-savings. Instead of the nine- to
36-month terms typical for parolees recommitted for violations, RSAT
participants served six months in prison-based intensive therapeutic
communities (TCs), followed by six months of aftercare in a
DOC-sponsored Community Corrections Center (CCC), similar to a halfway
house. This study focused on the prison-based component of the RSAT
programs. Men selected for RSAT from the state's western region were
transferred to the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at
Huntingdon. Men from eastern Pennsylvania were sent to
SCI-Graterford. Gateway Rehabilitation Services, a private drug
treatment provider, operated the program at Huntingdon, and
Civigenics, another private provider, operated the Graterford
program. Both programs took a cognitive-behavioral approach to drug
treatment. Their logic model presumed that RSAT participants would
learn to make socially responsible decisions and develop new responses
to social and environmental cues that previously led them to use drugs
and commit crimes. This study provided an interim assessment of the
implementation of this logic model. It examined the extent to which
components of RSAT treatment were in place and the integrity of
program operations. The following questions guided this evaluation:
(1) What was the underlying treatment philosophy of the RSAT program?
What therapeutic methods were used and how was the program structured?
(2) What was the program setting? How did the correctional setting
affect treatment delivery? (3) How were new RSAT participants
processed upon entry? What were the program's rules and how were they
enforced? Were there any particular successes or problems in
implementing this aspect of the program? (4) What treatment and other
services were delivered in the program? How did the program's phase
structure work? What was the program environment? Were there any
particular successes or problems in implementing this aspect of the
program? (5) How was the program staffed? Were there any particular
successes or problems in establishing and maintaining program
management and staffing? (6) What were the characteristics of program
participants? What were participant perceptions of the programs? (7)
What kinds of aftercare were provided after participants completed the
in-prison treatment phase? Were there any particular successes or
failures in implementing the program's aftercare components? (8) Did
the program reach full capacity and remain there? What were the early
program outcomes regarding participant retention and completion rates?
What did findings on those who failed say about the program? (9) What
were the lessons of this evaluation for other prison treatment
programs nationally?

Study Design:
Interviews for this study were conducted between
February and December 1998. At intake, program staff interviewed RSAT
participants, and Vera Institute of Justice onsite researchers
conducted participant interviews upon exit. Through December 31, 1998,
160 intake interviews and 77 exit interviews with program graduates
were administered. The intake interview included a supplemented form
of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), a widely used and studied
assessment measure for substance abusers. The ASI was supplemented
with additional questions, developed at Vera Institute of Justice,
about criminal behavior and employment history. The exit interview
included the Community Oriented Programs Environment Scale, program
rating and satisfaction measures developed by researchers at Texas
Christian University, an adapted version of the Treatment Services
Review, and a series of questions about experiences on parole.

Sample:
To be eligible for RSAT, technical parole violators must
have had at least 18 months remaining on their (maximum) sentence, a
demonstrated need for drug abuse treatment, and no history of escape,
arson, or significant difficulties in the community corrections
centers. All RSAT recommitments carried a mandatory time limit of 12
months regardless of time spent in the Community Corrections Centers
(CCCs), resulting in varying lengths of stay in CCC aftercare.

Data Source:

Interviews with RSAT participants were conducted by program
staff upon entering the program and by Vera researchers upon exit.

Description of Variables:
Part 1, Intake Data, variables include sex, date of
birth, date of admission, date of interview, RSAT site, current
residence, ethnicity, religion, whether in controlled environment in
last 30 days and length of stay, medical history, education,
employment, sources of financial support, dependents, history of
alcohol use, history of use of different types of drugs, which
substance was most problematic, history of abstinence from drugs and
alcohol, sexual activity, number of times overdosed on drugs, money
spent on alcohol or drugs in last 30 days, and how bothered patient
was by use of alcohol and drugs. Also included were data on history of
alcohol and drug treatment, criminal history, family history of
alcohol use, drug use, and psychological problems, marital status,
satisfaction with marital status, living arrangements, number of
self-help meetings attended in last month, number of children, age of
each child, living arrangement of each child, and who had legal
custody of each child, how patient spent free time, number of close
friends, relationship with family and friends, emotional, physical,
and sexual abuse, and mental health history. Variables also include
the patient's rating of the importance of receiving treatment for
problems relating to health, employment, drug and alcohol use,
criminal activity, social relations, and mental health. The
interviewer's ratings of the severity of the patient's problems, his
level of misrepresentation, and his ability to understand are also
included for each of these areas. Part 2, Exit Data, variables include
interview date, RSAT site, admission date, CCC location, medical care
received while in program, participation in RSAT classes/sessions
regarding health, legal problems, education/employment,
family/relationship problems, psychological/emotional problems, and
drug/alcohol use, a patient rating for helpfulness of each type of
class/session, psychiatric medication, frequency of drug/alcohol
tests, and detox medication, whether program helped patient obtain an
ID, public assistance, or unemployment benefits, time spent in
non-therapeutic activities, participation in individual counseling,
frequency with which different issues were discussed in individual
counseling, patient ratings for different aspects of RSAT program,
parole history prior to reincarceration, whether the patient received
drug treatment when first released, reasons treatment was not
received, whether the patient had to find a job upon release and
whether a job was found, whether the patient had to attend any other
programming/counseling and what kind, curfew when first released and
just before violating parole, requirements to submit urine for drug
testing, other conditions of parole, living situation while on parole,
access to transportation while on parole, reason violated parole,
whether the patient made a legal promise to enter treatment, patient's
understanding of consequences if treatment was not completed, whether
the patient thought he would complete the entire RSAT program, and the
patient's opinion of what factors would have helped him get more out
of the program.

Response Rates:
Through December 31, 1998, 160 of the 237
individuals who entered the programs had completed intake interviews,
and 77 of 110 program graduates had completed exit interviews.

Presence of Common Scales:
Scales used were the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), the
Community Oriented Programs Environment Scale, and an adapted version
of the Treatment Services Review.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:2003-05-09

Version History:

2006-03-30 File UG3075.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.